Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

This is true.

Yet i fear that Numbers has done 30x the work that the ECHR will eventually do.

I mean, three Italian courts refused to test a putative semen stain beneath the hips of a murdered victim. We're still scratching our heads over the judicial gymnastics required to justify that!

Ten years from now we'll be debating obvious flaws in how the ECHR eventually ruled.

Bill,

I understand your concerns.
However, the ECHR is not a domestic court, and does not function like one.

There are distinct qualities to the ECHR, which includes:

1) A human rights organization - the ECHR does not judge anyone guilty or not guilty. Its primary job is to determine whether or not a respondent Council of Europe State has violated the Convention rights of an applicant.

2) Supranational - ECHR is not tied to any State's domestic judicial or national politics.

3) Rational - ECHR judgments follow generally accepted rules of logic.

4) Procedural - ECHR strictly follows the Convention, ECHR case-law, its Court Rules, and common-law principles.

5) Practical - ECHR maintains, according to the Convention, that rights must be "practical and effective" not "theoretical and illusory" ( that is, not imaginary).

6) Adversarial - a respondent State must defend its position with credible evidence, not by fiat or "judicial truth".

7) Adaptive - ECHR interprets the Convention and ECHR case-law and thus advances ECHR case-law to meet new situations or to accomodate new understanding of human rights principles.

 

[tsig]

Something that should be asked (and has been asked by others) is can anybody get a fair trial in Italy?

Not since Julius Caesar.

 

[anglolawyer]

This is absolutely false. Prof. Potenza was there, he drew a report about the tests he witnessed and he was recorded at the incidents probatorio papers. He could have shot a video if he wanted, or have submitted any kind of observation. A Magistrate was present during the tests.

So what did Potenza see? The use of the Qubit? The 'too low' result? If not, why not?

 

[tsig]

In a stunning new development, Andrew Gumbel (Sollecito's ghostwriter) has directed his legal advisors to distance himself from the allegations included in Honor Bound. It's a wise decision although his nameplate is affixed to every printed copy of Sollecito's version of his story.

So here's where we're at. The two killers signed book deals. One has been promoted from the New York Times bestseller list to chasing down high school drama teachers in a small American suburb. The other was caught fleeing his own appeal in a hotel bordering Slovenia and has had his travel papers revoked.

Each one is facing further legal action for publishing false information and defaming those who arrested and prosecuted them. Their own ghostwriters have publicly disavowed them but are apparently keeping the money.

In only a couple months they're both going to have been convicted of aggravated murder along with the charges pending on their books.

See, this is what happens when your folks dial up the PR consultant instead of getting the best lawyers money can buy. Will Sollecito file a claim against Gumbel for abandoning him in this exciting new chapter? Does Sollecito have a leg to stand on? Smart people write those contracts and I can practically guarantee you that Gumbel won't pay a red cent and it's all going to be on Papa's VISA.

How would you like to be a Sollecito knowing all your inheritance went to some foreigner who cut your relative loose like a wounded albatross?

Posts like this keep me clicking on this thread.

 

[Bill Williams]

Ever changing the location of the goalposts, Machiavelli plays bob and weave on the issue of whether or not Knox was "strongly suspected", and therefore could have her rights violated.

This was convered in Continuation 9 of this thread, on July 1st, 2014.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10095654&highlight=strongly+suspected#post10095654

Please note how Machiavelli changes the discussion from having a lawyer and translator at interrogation, to the more general theme of someone being investigated (and thus suspected) secretly in other venues (like wiretaps, etc.).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10096074&highlight=strongly+suspected#post10096074

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach keeps making this (highlighted) point. The evidence is now settled. Any irregularities and errors are now unchallengeable because the findings are a legal fact. I have previously asked what exactly are the rights of the observers? Can they challenge the test? Can they redo the test themselves? Can they access the laboratory SOPs, external audit and internal QC records? Could they have insisted on having a down load of the electronic files? Clearly they were not even given copies of the paper printouts?

This observer status may have been acceptable in the old days when the science was simpler, but modern forensic science depends on a long chain of procedures. Preparing standards, calibrating equipment, cleaning the lab. It is hugely impractical to observe all this. It may involve multiple areas of expertise.

Certainly if I am arrested in Italy I will insist I personally will be present to observe my own tests, and I'll cough and splutter all over the lab and invalidate any testing.

I do not know the law of Italy, but if it is true once the evidence is settled because the test was observed it becomes unchallengeable, it is concerning. It is potentially unjust. It may be legal but that does not make it right. Much of the argument around access to the details of testing, 'discovery', is I think because the view is that once the test is done and observed the facts are fixed. This may even result in poor record keeping. I wonder if the electronic records still exist?

It is an important aspect that plays a determinant role and also has to do with the pro defendants propaganda. The fact that evidence is "formed" through an adversarial debate, that it is an "event" and a logical elaboration rather than a physical item, is something that belongs to the principles of every system.

This argument emerged as key topic during Stefanoni's testimony in 2008.
The topic was even addressed by the media in Italy during the early days of the investigation. When the incidente probatorio is applied on some evidence during the investigation, normally this means there is not going to be anything scientific debate about that item at the trial. Stefanoni technically doesn't bring scientific evidence to be discussed, but her testimony about an incidente probatorio.

But the wider principle is that evidence discussion is opened and closed formally, and points arguments and discussions are supposed to be set and made during that window. After that, it is not that discussion can't be re-opened on a item, bit the re-opening of a debate on some evidence needs to be motivated by the party who wants di do it and they need to bring very convincing reasons to do so.

The concept of best evidence is in fact relative, in that it depends on the defence requests.

The observers at an incidente probatorio may observe, but they can also document, make videos, record, put observations in the record, rise objections or demand procedures to be applied or tests to be made. The defence may also object in principle to the incidente probatorio taking place, demand that a judge take part to it and so.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill,

I understand your concerns.
However, the ECHR is not a domestic court, and does not function like one.

There are distinct qualities to the ECHR, which includes:

1) A human rights organization - the ECHR does not judge anyone guilty or not guilty. Its primary job is to determine whether or not a respondent Council of Europe State has violated the Convention rights of an applicant.

2) Supranational - ECHR is not tied to any State's domestic judicial or national politics.

3) Rational - ECHR judgments follow generally accepted rules of logic.

4) Procedural - ECHR strictly follows the Convention, ECHR case-law, its Court Rules, and common-law principles.

5) Practical - ECHR maintains, according to the Convention, that rights must be "practical and effective" not "theoretical and illusory" ( that is, not imaginary).

6) Adversarial - a respondent State must defend its position with credible evidence, not by fiat or "judicial truth".

7) Adaptive - ECHR interprets the Convention and ECHR case-law and thus advances ECHR case-law to meet new situations or to accomodate new understanding of human rights principles.

You obviously know this more than me. Yet if tribunals played by their own rules this thread would not exist.

Knox and Sollecito would never have made it to trial, much less be charged. You and would never have known one another if Judge Massei decided to make a judgement based on evidence, rather than on the perils of declaring that a colleague (Mr. Mignini) was an ass.

 

[Kauffer]

This is absolutely false. Prof. Potenza was there, he drew a report about the tests he witnessed and he was recorded at the incidents probatorio papers. He could have shot a video if he wanted, or have submitted any kind of observation. A Magistrate was present during the tests.

Were the details of the original bra clasp and knife tests recorded or are the egrams of just the "bis" re-do tests the only things available? Why don't we know about all the results of all the testing? Do you have evidence that a defence representative was there for everything - was invited to everything? In any case, how does the presence of a witness obviate the need for the disclosure of records?

 

[Numbers]

Ever changing the location of the goalposts, Machiavelli plays bob and weave on the issue of whether or not Knox was "strongly suspected", and therefore could have her rights violated.

This was convered in Continuation 9 of this thread, on July 1st, 2014.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10095654&highlight=strongly+suspected#post10095654

Please note how Machiavelli changes the discussion from having a lawyer and translator at interrogation, to the more general theme of someone being investigated (and thus suspected) secretly in other venues (like wiretaps, etc.).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10096074&highlight=strongly+suspected#post10096074

Better to look at CPP Articles 63 and 64, using a fair translator.
Of course, the Italian courts didn't bother to look too closely at their own CPP.

 

[Numbers]

You obviously know this more than me. Yet if tribunals played by their own rules this thread would not exist.

Knox and Sollecito would never have made it to trial, much less be charged. You and would never have known one another if Judge Massei decided to make a judgement based on evidence, rather than on the perils of declaring that a colleague (Mr. Mignini) was an ass.

Yes, Italian courts apparently have their own characteristics.
Some countries that have had authoritarian histories still have issues as democracies. Turkey, Italy, Russia, Poland, and Romania have the most applications and cases that have entered the ECHR system, 1959-2013. Ukraine may be a close runner-up. (And Russia, Romania, Poland, and Ukraine are relatively recent joiners of the CoE.)

http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=reports&c=
(Overview, 1959-2013)

Since it was established in 1959 the Court has delivered about 17,000
judgments. Nearly half of the judgments concerned 5 member States:
Turkey (2,994), Italy (2,268), the Russian Federation (1,475), Poland (1,042) and Romania (1,026).

Of the total number of judgments it has delivered since 1959, the Court has
found at least one violation of the Convention by the respondent State in
83% of cases.

 

[tsig]

Bill, it seems we are in agreement! Something terrible must be about to happen.

However w.r.t both LJ and Kauffer discovering that RS’s Nov 5/6th betrayal of Amanda was IRRELEVANT catching up is hardly applicable.
It seem Kauffer is 3 or 4 years behind ‘the curve’ (no pun intended) in this matter.
I will accept Numbers knowledge of the case is certainly on a par with Kaosiums.

But you are forgetting someone. Supernaut

While you have all identified the vast scope of the conspiracy, only he was brave enough to name those responsible.
To be fair in an Amanda centered universe such paranoia probably makes sense.

Before she was born she was fated to play the central part in the great drama of our age.

 

[tsig]

I actually think that Machiavellian is right. . . . .They don't care too much about the family but the judiciary is concerned about the egg in the face.

I doubt it the Italian Judiciary is as obsessed with this case as this thread"s participants are.

 

[Matthew Best]

I doubt it the Italian Judiciary is as obsessed with this case as this thread"s participants are.

You're obsessed? Colour me unsurprised.

 

[Machiavelli]

According to you the bloody print of the knife is a print of the knife ex Sollecito. So you know it was covered in blood including the handle. I would be very interested how you can explain how all the blood, all the DNA of MK except a single isolated very small amount was removed, but the DNA of Knox (if you believe she did the stabbing and the DNA was deposited at the time of the stabbing) was left in a considerably greater amount than the victim's and more widely distributed.

Actually this about handle covered in blood is an innocentisti interpretation of the stain. My interpretation is very different, and doesn't have any handle print.

This was the print (sorry only low resolution allowed by forum):



And this my interpretation, its overlapping with the blade:



The blade is very large, it gets dirty with blood for about 12-13 cm, the handle has nothing to do with the print.

My objection to Stefanoni's testimony is she should testify only to what is in her competency. She is a DNA scientist, she had no qualifications in forensic science. She should have limited her testimony to the DNA findings. Her proceeding to claim that the pattern of deposition of DNA of Knox meant she wielded the knife in a stab, is illogical, unscientific (in that there is no experimental evidence / literature to support her interpretation) and is a classic example of when someone proceeds beyond their professional competency to being part of the prosecution team. This is not unique to Stefanoni, false convictions are full of experts who over state their evidence. The Robbins footprint analysis used by the scientific police is a classic example. Many cases involving arson are based on scientifically dubious (to be polite) opinions.

I am very perplexed by your objection to Stefanoni. It is both unfounded on point of law, as well as on grounds of facts based on the transcript of Stefanoni's 2008 testimony.

First it is not true that Stefanoni doesn't work as a forensic. In fact she was not only working as a molecular biologist in the laboratory, she was also directly involved on the evidence collection. She was at the crime scene and directed the whole sessions of evidence collection while she was there; not only she analysed items at the laboratory, in fact she also chose what items would be worth collecting and testing, based on her own assessment about the crime dynamics, as well as the order to follow for items collections.
Under many effects she acted as a crime scene manager - limited to the sessions where she was allowed - and a forensic invesigator, not only as a laboratory scientist. She did not just test fingernails swab samples for DNA, for example: she actually went to the morgue before the body was washed, observed Meredith's fingernails and took herself the swabs for each finger. She made decision about sample collections on each item based on her forensic experience.

It is obvious that she would testify about this activity of her.

But then, also as for trial papers, it does not seem correct - on grounds of facts - what you attribute to Stefanoni's testimony. What she in fact testifiied about sample A on the knife handle, was about why she chose to that particular point on the handle for DNA testing. She said that she chose that particular spot because, based on her 15-year experience as forensic, on stabbing, the murderer's DNA is found more often on that part of the handle, since a very big force is applied there in a stabbing movement. And also, based on her experience, in a superficial washing the murderer may easily "forget" to accurately wash that part of the handle, as the handle is rather big and during a one may tend to clean the other more extended areas.
So the testimony of Stefanoni was an answer about why she chose to test that particular spot of the handle.
I fail to see how this could be seen as unethical.

 

[Machiavelli]

So what did Potenza see? The use of the Qubit? The 'too low' result? If not, why not?

Obviously he saw everything.

 

[Kauffer]

Actually this about handle covered in blood is an innocentisti interpretation of the stain. My interpretation is very different, and doesn't have any handle print.

This was the print (sorry only low resolution allowed by forum):

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4347454c520207a87a.jpg[/qimg]

And this my interpretation, its overlapping with the blade:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4347454c520b91f08a.jpg[/qimg]

The blade is very large, it gets dirty with blood for about 12-13 cm, the handle has nothing to do with the print.



I am very perplexed by your objection to Stefanoni. It is both unfounded on point of law, as well as on grounds of facts based on the transcript of Stefanoni's 2008 testimony.

First it is not true that Stefanoni doesn't work as a forensic. In fact she was not only working as a molecular biologist in the laboratory, she was also directly involved on the evidence collection. She was at the crime scene and directed the whole sessions of evidence collection while she was there; not only she analysed items at the laboratory, in fact she also chose what items would be worth collecting and testing, based on her own assessment about the crime dynamics, as well as the order to follow for items collections.
Under many effects she acted as a crime scene manager - limited to the sessions where she was allowed - and a forensic invesigator, not only as a laboratory scientist. She did not just test fingernails swab samples for DNA, for example: she actually went to the morgue before the body was washed, observed Meredith's fingernails and took herself the swabs for each finger. She made decision about sample collections on each item based on her forensic experience.

It is obvious that she would testify about this activity of her.

But then, also as for trial papers, it does not seem correct - on grounds of facts - what you attribute to Stefanoni's testimony. What she in fact testifiied about sample A on the knife handle, was about why she chose to that particular point on the handle for DNA testing. She said that she chose that particular spot because, based on her 15-year experience as forensic, on stabbing, the murderer's DNA is found more often on that part of the handle, since a very big force is applied there in a stabbing movement. And also, based on her experience, in a superficial washing the murderer may easily "forget" to accurately wash that part of the handle, as the handle is rather big and during a one may tend to clean the other more extended areas.
So the testimony of Stefanoni was an answer about why she chose to test that particular spot of the handle.
I fail to see how this could be seen as unethical.

Your manipulation of the picture of the knife imprint is comically absurd. How do we find multiple plungings of the actual knife used in the murder to exactly the same depth unless it is to the hilt?

There is no blood on the kitchen knife. How do you bleach clean the knife of blood and leave DNA and starch?

How and why did the knife get to the cottage?

Why would murderers so intricate in their approach to the post crime situation that a meticulous clean up is carried out, take the risk of returning the knife to the kitchen drawer at Mr Sollecito's apartment - transporting it back? Why don't they toss the knife?

And while they are about it, why don't they toss the bathmat?

You want us to believe that your murderers are devious sociopaths on the one hand and dumb boobies on the other - all at the same time.

It's absurd.

 

[Machiavelli]

Then where did all those crazy Italian articles come from? If you want to suggest that all the newspapers in Italy are susceptible to the tabloid mentality, you won't get an argument from me.

The idea that inflammatory articles can be printed in the press while a trial is going on, that these leaks are facilitated by prosecutors deliberately creating these leaks often with false information speciofically to influence public opinion and tilt the outcome of the trial, and that jurors aren't sequestered - much less that an eight grade education suffices to sit on a jury - is all just sad, and less than anyone should hope or expect from a modern country.

The Italians I've met while traveling abroad, or in the US, have all been lovely people.

The characters I've seen on TV from this trial on TV, and their comments in press reports, just broke my heart.

Nothing prepared me for seeing the deranged lunatic Mignini, puffing his chest and spewing paranoid idiotic nonsense at a diminutive American girl, obviously scared and completely innocent of the crazy allegations being hurled at her.

And nothing prepared me for a so-called justice system, where the judges reject the scientific opinions of their own independent experts, in favor of non-scientific standards issued by a cassation judge who spends his spare time as a prominent '9-11 truther'.

I do admire Mach, if that's the right word, your 'chutzbah' and facility for counter-arguing almost any point on almost any subject, regardless of how far you are forced to stretch the bonds of credulity.

Your thesis that Amanda and Raf helped Rudy stab Meredith, and then 'immediately ran out of the room', is just a classic. You know the fact that only one set of footprints in Meredith's blood in the murder room means only one person could have been standing there. So you invent a scenario where Amanda and Raf can do their part of the murder quickly, without getting any blood on them, or stepping in any blood. Why Amanda and Raf, or anyone for that matter, would commit a murder (again for some unknown reason), and then "immediately run out of the room", you simply never address.

Mach, neither Amanda nor Raf were in the room when Meredith was killed by Rudy. They weren't in the cottage. They never left Raf's apartment that night. There is ZERO legitimate evidence they did.

I don't envy you your task of defending the police and Mignini. Other people have speculated you are more than one person, because of the range, speed and dexterity of your comments. I can only say, I'm impressed.

Most kids want the world to be fair. It's naive, but rather normal. Learning that not everyone is put together the same way, that there are people who are deliberately dishonest and lie, I suppose its a rite of passage into adulthood. Some people don't care about the truth. Which kind are you? Without meaning any offense, I just can't tell.

I am not defending Mignini nor the police, I am defending the truth. And I am defending justice.
While you are a person who is defending Spezi and Preston, two proven liars, and you believe the worst covering-ups on the Narducci case, getting engaged in the most blatant denial of justice, evidence and truth on the Narducci case.

And btw, inside the cottage there are actually two clearly vidsible sets of physical traces with opposite features, including two sets of footprints, showing two different modus operandi on the scene.

 

[Machiavelli]

Your manipulation of the picture of the knife imprint is comically absurd. (...)

1. I didn't manipulate absolutely anything. I overlapped pictures. Not manipulated them (except mild contrast enhancement)

2. Why is the overlapping absurd?

 

[Kauffer]

1. I didn't manipulate absolutely anything. I overlapped pictures. Not manipulated them (except mild contrast enhancement)

2. Why is the overlapping absurd?

Is this a serious question?

Why don't you answer mine? A good discipline for you!

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

1. I didn't manipulate absolutely anything. I overlapped pictures. Not manipulated them (except mild contrast enhancement)

2. Why is the overlapping absurd?

I will tell you why. I just had to log in because of that picture you posted. You line up the one edge and the rest of the spots and splats, well, they are just all over the blade for some reason. How convenient.

More of those lines mean something. They are not just spots which happened to be on the blade. For example, the one square-ish spot is clearly the hilt of the knife, yet in your example it is just arbitrarily on the blade.

Bull-oney. If I had photoshop skills I would show you what you've done completely wrong.